On January 29, 2024, the General Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (“Law”) came into force. This Law provides alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes between individuals or legal entities in civil, commercial, family, and notably, administrative matters.
Among the methods included are negotiation, mediation, and conciliation, which may be initiated either during the administrative phase or while proceedings are pending before administrative courts.
The Law provides that these mechanisms may be conducted before, among others, the Public Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal.
Regarding their admissibility, the Law establishes, among other criteria, that the dispute must be negotiable (i.e., subject to settlement), and the authority involved must issue a technical-legal opinion supporting its participation, ensuring responsibility and budgetary viability. Agreements entered into and ratified through these mechanisms have the force of a ruling and cannot be judicially challenged by the authorities.
Although the Law has been in force since January 2024, the issuance of specific provisions applicable to the Public Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal was still pending (“Public Center”).
In this regard, on May 12, 2025, the Regulations of the Public Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal ("Regulations") were published in the Federal Official Gazette and came into effect on May 13 of the same year.
These Regulations outline the procedures for negotiation, conciliation, and mediation as established in the Law, which may be initiated during the substantiation of annulment proceedings before the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal or during administrative proceedings that lack specific regulation.
Although there have been various discussions as to whether these procedures apply to disputes involving the assessment of taxes, neither the Law nor the Regulations contain an express prohibition. Therefore, we consider that, insofar as the certified facilitators of the Public Center validate the applicability of these mechanisms for a specific case and tax authorities are willing to participate in these mechanisms, there would be no express impediment to applying them in such matters.
The transitional provisions of the Regulations state that parties in pending proceedings as of the effective date of the Regulations may request that their disputes be resolved through these alternative mechanisms. However, it is not yet clear how these procedures would be carried out immediately, since the head of the Public Center—responsible for processing these matters—has not yet been appointed (the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal should appoint the head of the Public Centerwithin a 30 day period), and the guidelines for certifying facilitators who conduct these procedures, as well as the regulations for their training and evaluation, have not yet been issued.
The Law and the recent issuance of the Regulations open the door to evaluating whether, in the case of pending annulment proceedings, it may be advisable to consider submitting such disputes to these alternative mechanisms. We remain at your disposal to assess the convenience of applying these mechanisms to specific cases.
Awards
.svg){kind=small}
